Sounds like it would have helped for this macro writer to provide a
functional interface as well, so you could abstract over it at
run-time. Sorry I don't have any more helpful suggestions.
Carl Eastlund
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Todd O'Bryan <toddobryan at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to figure out the pieces at run-time. The macro is rather
> involved and was written by someone smarter than I, so I was hoping to
> avoid having to figure out exactly how it's doing what it's doing and
> just trust it to do the right thing. Serves me right for being lazy.
>> Thanks!
> Todd
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Carl Eastlund <carl.eastlund at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Todd O'Bryan <toddobryan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> OK, I know there isn't, since macros match before the code has a
>>> chance to run, but here's what I need to do:
>>>>>> I'm using someone else's very nice macro that has the form
>>>>>> (macro-name expr [literal1 val1] [literal2 val2] ...)
>>>>>> The problem is that I have to build up the "expr [literal1 val1]
>>> [literal2 val2] ..." programmatically and the macro is pretty
>>> complicated.
>>>>>> So, how do I put together all the parts after the macro name and then
>>> get the result as if they'd gone through macro expansion?
>>>>>> Todd
>>>> What do you mean by "have to build up the [body] programmatically"?
>> Do you mean you have to do it at run-time? Or do you mean you need
>> more than just pattern matching to build it? If the former,
>> presumably it would be just as easy to write the code directly without
>> the macro as it would be to compute the macro, expand it, and run it.
>> If the latter, there's no reason you can't build syntax
>> programmatically within a macro based on syntax-case or syntax-parse.
>>>> --Carl